NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Comlin Holdings Pty Ltd v Metlej Developments Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 73 Hearing dates: 19 March 2019 Date of orders: 19 March 2019 Decision date: 16 April 2019 Before: Basten JA and Meagher JA at [1]; Emmett AJA at [20] Decision: (1) Dismiss the appellant's application to call further evidence on the appeal.
(2) Appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the motion. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – appeal – evidence – application to adduce further evidence on appeal – adverse inference drawn by trial judge from failure to call witness – whether application should be adjourned and heard concurrently with appeal –special grounds – whether conduct of legal representative binds party – whether high degree of probability of different result if further evidence adduced – credibility of further evidence Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 192A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 24, 27 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 75A, 101 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.53 Cases Cited: Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155 CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67 Comlin Holdings Pty Ltd v Metlej Developments Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 761 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33 Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543; [1988] HCA 52 Hampson v Hampson [2010] NSWCA 359; 5 ASTLR 116 Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; [2006] HCA 9 Phoenix Commercial Enterprises Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2010] NSWCA 64 R v Ensor [1989] 1 WLR 497 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2001] HCA 46 Tjiong v Tjiong [2012] NSWCA 201 University of Wollongong v Metwally [No 2] (1985) 59 ALJR 481; [1985] HCA 28 Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 28 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Comlin Holdings Pty Ltd (Appellant) Metlej Developments Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Nova Scotia Developments Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Kayrouz Constructions Pty Ltd (Third Respondent) L.A.D.S. Developments Pty Ltd (Fourth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: P E King (Appellant) J Stoljar SC with L Gor (First & Second Respondents) A d'Arville (Third & Fourth Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate